The perceived adultism scale: Initial validation of an instrument measuring youth experiences of age-based oppression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite growing interest in youth oppression (i.e. adultism), there are no quantitative measures of youths’ perceived experiences of this construct. We addressed this gap by evaluating the psychometric properties of the Perceived Adultism Scale (PAS), administered to 703 racialized or LGBTQ+ women and gender-expansive youth living in Melbourne (Australia), Toronto (Canada), and New York City (USA) as part of a larger multimethod study. Exploratory factor analysis pointed to a one-factor solution explaining 54.41% (NYC) to 61.31% (Melbourne) of the variance in the final 7-item PAS. Internal consistency was high (α = .862 − .892), and the PAS demonstrated convergent and discriminant validity. However, there were differences across cities in items’ respective contributions to the factor model, indicating psychometric nonequivalence across geographically-defined cultures. We contextualize our findings, discuss the strengths and limitations of our study, and suggest how the PAS might be used in youth work and research on youth development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".